Zarah & Pharez

Part Twelve

Questions & Answers

* Does sonship allow the teachings of reincarnation into its message?

The short answer to that question would be No, it does not. The somewhat longer answer
would No, including reasons why it does not. But before we get into the reasons, perhaps
we should explain a little about the teaching itself, as well as some of its variations.

As most of you who are reading this already know, reincarnation is the belief that the
spirits (or souls) which presently incarnate our bodies have been involved in a "recycling
process" of sorts. It suggests that they have indwelt other bodies before, and, upon their
departure, will probably occupy other dwellings in the future. While there are as many as
ten different versions of the theory throughout the world, all of them are built around the
same basic principle, namely, that the conditions and circumstances experienced in this
life are the results of actions performed in a previous one (or more). This principle is
commonly known as the Law of Karma, or the cosmic law of sowing and reaping.

According to those who believe in Karma (a Sanskrit word, meaning "action, or deed"),
we all live in a cause-and-effect universe. Therefore, the fact that we presently reside in
earthly bodies is all the evidence they need that we have lived here before. Furthermore,
the fact that we all experience suffering to one degree or another shows that we have
outstanding sins from former lives for which we must now pay. For the reincarnationist,
suffering is viewed as the effect; so sin is naturally viewed as the cause. Hence, all life in
the flesh is considered by them to be a form of punishment, and our bodies are regarded
as being the prison houses wherein our sentences are carried out. Therefore, it could be
said that the way in which reincarnationists explain the presence of suffering in this world
is through the teaching of Karma, and the way in which they offer a solution to the
problem of suffering itself is through the doctrine of rebirths.

Reincarnation can be found in many of the ancient cultures of the world. And, as one
might expect, the beliefs of one culture do differ slightly from those of a neighboring
culture. For instance, the traditional beliefs of the Egyptians regarding reincarnation
would naturally differ somewhat from the those of the Greeks, simply because they hold
different opinions concerning the origin, nature and/or composition of the soul.. The
same would be true of the Africans, Indians, Celts, and others. We would expect each
culture to have its own adaptation of the story, which would vary slightly from that of its
neighbors. But where did the story actually originate, and in what form did it first appear?

Most historians agree on the birthplace of the doctrine as being "Mother India," but some
disagreement exists regarding the precise time of its appearance. Some claim to have
found evidence of the doctrine among the Indo-Aryans of Punjab and Sind, India, about
1800 B.C. Others place it no earlier than 800 or 600 B.C. At any rate, the Hindus are
credited as being its source. How did they originally present it? Well, the basic idea was
that the spirit (or soul) originally existed in an indistinguishable form within Brahman
(someone has defined Brahman as "Everything in general, but Nothing in particular"). As
such, it had no individual identity of its own. All was One, and that One was Brahman.
Then a problem occurred in the system. How it happened is anyone's guess, but somehow
or another, the spirit forgot about this state of union in which it existed, and began to
view itself as being separate and distinct from the Absolute. It believed that it possessed
personal identity apart from the impersonal nature of Brahman, that it constituted
something other than the All. As a result, the physical realm materialized, the human
form took shape, and the spirit was subsequently trapped in a prison house of its own
making. This mistaken identity became known as the "fall." From that point on, the self-
segregated spirit (referred to as "atman") has been forced to be incarnated again and again
upon the cyclic wheel of "Samsara," until two things happen; 1) that it pays the Karmic
debt which it has accrued during the course of its revolutions, and 2) that it finally
awakens to the realization that everything in creation, including itself, is merely an
illusion ("maya"), having no existence other than the one it has imagined itself to have.
You see, according to Hindu philosophy, there is really only one true Reality, and that
reality is Brahman. All else is but the appearance of reality, though lacking in true
substance. This explains the Hindu saying that "atman IS Brahman" (meaning, the
individual soul is the World Soul, without division). If atman seems to be something
other than Brahman, it is only because it thinks that it is. But until atman comes around to
this knowledge, and until it has been thoroughly purified from the sins of the past, it
cannot be absorbed back into that original state of non-existence which it experienced
from the beginning ("moksha" to the Hindu; "nirvana" to the Buddhist).

If we really want to get technical about it, the correct term for Hindu and Buddhist beliefs
is transmigration, or the transmigration of souls (the term for the Platonic version, or any
of the Greek philosophical beliefs derived from the Orphic mystery religions, is
metempsychosis). Therefore, when we use the term reincarnation, we are actually
referring to the eclectic Western version of the theory. The primary difference between
reincarnation and transmigration is that, while transmigration involves the spirit's
residence in all types of bodies (animal, vegetable and mineral), reincarnation is simply
limited to human bodies alone.

During the latter part of the 19th century, the theory of reincarnation was basically
introduced to the Western world by Madame Helena Blavatsky and members of her
Theosophical Society, as well as through the numerous gurus who began to make their
way across the Atlantic shortly thereafter. The reason why they came up with this
watered-down version in the first place is because they believed that it would have been
more difficult to sell the idea of transmigration in its pure form to the Christian
community. Therefore, in order to get Westerners to buy into the idea of recycled life, its
promoters modified the doctrine to suit their audience. As history can now attest, their
strategy succeeded in helping them reach their goals, and perhaps even exceeded their
greatest expectations.

During the twentieth century, no one was more successful in popularizing reincarnation
than was the renowned psychic Edgar Cayce. Part of Cayce's success as an ideological
"salesman" stemmed from the fact that he claimed to be a Christian. Borrowing ideas for
the foundation of his teachings from both Greek and Hindu traditions (and building, of
course, on the foundation Blavatsky had already laid), he claimed that he was able to
reach beyond the veil of forgetfulness through which all souls pass, and to psychically
retrieve information regarding past lives from what is known in metaphysical circles as
"the Akashic Records" (as we have explained in previous writings, the Akashic Records
are supposed to be ethereal records in the spirit world wherein all thoughts and
experiences are said to be imprinted). Mr. Cayce gave thousands of readings from this so-
called "Hall of Records," from which he offered details of encounters which allegedly
occurred during the course of his own innumerable past lives, as well as those occurring
for many of the individuals who came to him for guidance. The collective content of
those readings, and the esoteric information they provided, served as "a bible" of sorts for
those who were seeking to know more about the subject. Although the doctrine would
continue to be "tweaked" as time went on, practically anything anyone wanted to learn
about it could be found in those logs.

During the sixties, and into the early part of the seventies, the belief was promoted by
other well-known psychics, such as Jeanne Dixon and Ruth Montgomery (author of A
World Beyond.) There were also a number of books which carried the theme. Author
Richard Bach made his literary contribution through his book, Jonathan Livingston
Seagull, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross made hers with On Death and Dying, and Raymond
Moody joined the chorus with Life After Life. Nevertheless, reincarnation received one of
its biggest boosts in popularity through a book written by actress Shirley MacLaine,
entitled, Out on a Limb (which was also turned into a made-for-TV movie). We could go
on listing sources from then until now, but they've become too numerous to mention.
Suffice it to say that the doctrine is undoubtedly one of the primary unifying beliefs in
New Age circles.

While the expression "Christian Reincarnation" has successfully made its way into
modern vernacular, it serves as a gross contradiction of terms! There really is no such
thing, nor could there ever be....and this will become clearer by the time that we conclude
our response. Nevertheless, how have reincarnationists presented their teachings to make
them appear to be coming from a Christian point of view?

Well, those who promote this ideological mixture usually start by saying that
transmigration was a common concept in the early Church, and was frequently found
throughout the writings of the New Testament until it was removed by church leaders.
The account most often parroted is that it was erased from the canon of scripture by the
Nicene Council in 325 A.D. Others, such as Shirley MacLaine, suggest that it was struck
from the Bible during the Fifth Ecumenical Council meeting in Constantinople in the
year 553. Where they got these ideas, no one seems to know. But the fact of the matter is
that the subjects addressed during each of the church councils are a matter of public
record, and not once can it be shown that the issue of transmigration was ever even
raised, much less that it was extricated from the body of New Testament writings. We
would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. So while reincarnationists will generally
state this with great conviction and in confident tones, there is not a shred of evidence to
support their claim.

We do not hesitate to admit that those in Jesus' day were familiar with the teachings of
transmigration. This is a historically verifiable fact. It had found its way into Rabbinical
circles during the Babylonian captivity, and the Platonic version of it had been introduced
to the Jewish community by Helenized Jews. But it would be difficult to ascertain just
how far the teaching had spread, or how much it had found acceptance among them.
There is one thing that we can say with certainty, however, and that is that it was not, nor
has it ever been a part of Jewish orthodoxy.

What about the claim that it was a common concept in the early Church? Naturally, we
would expect anyone who would make such a claim to be able to back up what they say.
That it can be found in certain documents that claimed to be Christian (but were, in fact,
of Gnostic origin) proves nothing. Such letters were never accepted as being
representative of church doctrine; and those bearing the names of the apostles have long
been identified as forgeries. However, what we do find is that, among those documents
formally recognized by the church, the first time that transmigration was mentioned was
in A.D. 155 by Justin Martyr, at which time he denounced the doctrine as being heretical.
Not long thereafter, the subject was again addressed in the writings of Origen (A.D.
185-254), who, despite the oddness of his position on other questionable issues, devoted
two lengthy essays to the refutation of this one.

Not ones to be deterred by the facts, many reincarnationists persist with their
presentation. They go on to say that, despite the best efforts of the church to purge this
doctrine from Scripture, there is still enough evidence therein to establish its presence,
and to prove its legitimacy. One of the first ways in which they attempt to show this is by
saying that the Bible implicitly teaches the doctrine of Karma. After all, doesn't the latter
part of Galatians 6:7 read, "...for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"?
Indeed it does. But the biblical understanding of the law principle of sowing and reaping
is as distant from the Law of Karma as the east is from the west.

A great deal of time could be devoted to this topic alone. But we'll limit our comments to
the most obvious distinctions. We'll begin by taking a closer look at the doctrine of
Karma.

According to the ancient traditions, Karma is an inflexible law that governs the entire
cosmos. It's the primary law of that all-inclusive, impersonal Force transmigrationists
refer to as God. Karma is fixed and immutable, insisting that for every cause there must
be a corresponding effect. There are no exceptions to this rule, and nothing that bypasses
the process. This point is rigorously defended.

On issues of morality, Karma serves as the Supreme Justice System, demanding full
payment for every sin committed. Not only that, but it requires that every individual bear
his or her own Karmic debt. Each person must work out their own salvation, and is
forbidden from having anyone else work it out for them. Everyone must discover the
method of salvation that works best for them, and no one can interfere with the Karma of
another. It's thought that in this way, the chance to achieve perfection is offered to all
people unilaterally, and everyone is given the same opportunity to earn freedom through
the course of suffering. Consider, for example, these words by Alice Bailey.

"The immortality of the human soul, and the innate ability of the spiritual, inner man to
work out his own salvation under the Law of Rebirth, in response to the Law of Cause
and Effect, are the underlying factors governing all human aspiration. These two laws
no man can evade. They condition him at all times until he has achieved the desired and
the designed perfection and can manifest on earth as a rightly functioning son of God."
---"The Reappearance of the Christ," pg. 147.

According to Ms. Bailey, no one can get around the laws known as Rebirth and Karma.
The two go hand in hand. And everyone must experience them, until they have
completely accomplished their objective. Since (to hear her tell it) they serve as the
means through which all men shall attain unto a state of perfection and of manifested
sonship, the acceptance of the one would naturally require the embrace of the other. For
those who hold out hope to that end (but who don't necessarily see Jesus as being the
Pattern Son), this might seem to be as good an answer as any. They see no reason to
oppose it. But what the combination of these two laws actually amount to is a
meritorious, works-based system which allows man to become his own savior. This is
reaffirmed by Ms. Bailey's spiritual mentor, Madame Blavatsky. "It is owing to this law
of spiritual development that mankind will become freed from its false gods and find
itself finally SELF REDEEMED." ---Helena Blavatsky, Secret Doctrines.

Needless to say, this was definitely NOT what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the
Galatian church. The Pauline version of sonship is built on an entirely different set of
premises, which leads to an entirely different conclusion.

As is shown through the apostle's words to the Galatians, we, too, acknowledge a
universal law of cause and effect. This law serves as one of the underlying principles of
divine understanding, being evidenced both in practical theory and in the course of
nature. However, its operation in the world cannot be rightly understood apart from its
proper contextCwhich we happen to believe is the one that's revealed in Scripture. And
nothing within that context leads us to conclude that the reaping from the deeds of one
life occurs in subsequent incarnations! (Rom. 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death---
period. It says nothing about Karmic rebirths!)
It is true that, as a man sows, so shall he reap. That's one law upon which most will agree.
But, presiding over that law is the Law Giver, who has reserved the right to intervene in
the lives of men according to His own will and discretion. The thing of interest is that He
can do this, without ever committing a violation against the laws which He has
previously given. This is the prerogative of the personal God by whom we were created;
and this is a point to which the reincarnationist absolutely refuses to yield.

The God Who originally set in motion the law of sowing and reaping also made a
provision through which the wayward soul might be reconciled to Himself. In fact, this
provision was established in the mind of God before the first event ever transpired on this
planet---Jesus, the Lamb of God, was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).
He was foreordained to become both the Sin Offering, to be offered up in the material
world at a particular point in history, as well as the Sin-bearer, who would bear in His
own body the entire weight of mankind's sins. Armed with that knowledge, it could
rightly be said that the One who would reap (that is, Jesus) overtook the one who would
sow (that would be Adam), and the Sin-offering actually preceded the act of sin itself.
This attests to the omniscience and the omnipotence of our God. Not only did He know
of the Fall in advance; He maintained complete governance over the entire ordeal, so that
all things would ultimately work after the counsel of His own will. At no time was He
ever out of control, or caught by surprise by Adam's grave blunder. He causes all things
to work after the counsel of His own will, to the praise of His glory!

It bears acknowledgment that the entire Old Testament sacrificial system, which was first
introduced to erring man in Eden, gives us grounds for the belief in vicarious atonement.
And it was upon these grounds that Jesus suffered and died for us! "For Christ also hath
once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to
death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (I Peter 3:18). His sinless life was offered
in our stead, in order that our sin-debt might be completely and entirely removed from
our record. "And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our
transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against
us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the
cross." (Col. 2:13-14, NAS). The beauty of this is, even if there had been such a thing as
"Karmic debt", it would have been rendered null and void at Calvary. For every one who
trusts in Christ, the debt is marked "paid in full"!

Not only was Jesus the consummate Sacrifice for the sins of the world, but He also serves
as our Great High Priest, who is perfectly qualified to represent every man before God.
Having walked out His earthly sojourn as the Son of Man, having been tempted in all
points like as we are (yet without sin, Heb. 4:15), and having gained an understanding of
mankind's struggles by way of personal experience, He can now have compassion on the
ignorant, and those who are out of the way (Heb. 5:2). When we couple this with the fact
that all judgment has been committed unto the Son (Jn. 5:22), we can now come boldly
before the Throne of Grace with full confidence in His Word (Heb. 4:16). As I Jn. 2:1-2
says, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin,
we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." Ah,
the One who became our Sin-offering is also our Judge, who also serves as our Legal
Defense! Praise God! No greater Advocate could have possibly taken up our case! No
wonder Paul said, "If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all
things?" (Rom. 8:31-32). Knowing that God favors us, and that He holds nothing against
us, we can be entirely optimistic about our future.

This difference alone makes the doctrine of reincarnation totally incompatible with the
message of the Gospel. There can be no harmony on this point, no mixing of beliefs. But
this is not just our conclusion...consider these words of "inclusivist" Madame Blavatsky:
"Christians believe in the pardon and the remission of all sins. They are promised that if
they only believe in the blood of Christ (an innocent victim!), in the blood offered by Him
for the expiation of the sins of the whole of mankind, it will atone for every mortal sin.
And we believe neither in vicarious atonement, nor in the possibility of the remission of
the smallest sin by any god, not even by a "personal Absolute" or "Infinite," if such a
thing could have any existence. What we believe in, is strict and impartial justice. Our
idea of the unknown Universal Deity, represented by Karma, is that it is a Power which
cannot fail, and can, therefore, have neither wrath nor mercy, only absolute Equity,
which leaves every cause, great or small, to work out its inevitable effects."---end quote.
Given the facts that the doctrine of vicarious atonement is so undeniably present in
Scripture, and that folks like Blavatsky are so unwilling to tolerate it, even for a moment,
isn't it strange that they would even want to use the Bible in support of their theory? It
does raise questions about their motives, that's for sure!

It always needs to be remembered that, despite their insistence that all truth is relative,
and that nothing is absolute, the enjoined doctrines of Karma and Rebirths are absolutely
non-negotiable to the follower of the Eastern way of thinking. If he is truly devoted to his
philosophy, he will refuse to budge on this. To even attempt to view one of these
doctrines independently of the other would be an unconscionable act for him, and would
constitute a breakdown of his belief system. However, the same is true for the follower of
Christ (albeit, without the ideological conflict). It would be impossible for the Christian
to even consider the law of sowing and reaping apart from the sacrificial work of the
Christ, for we believe that this is the single most important revelation ever given by God
to man. Our precious Lord Jesus did for us what we could never have done for ourselves,
in order that we might obtain a standing in Him. "But God commended His love toward
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now
justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the Atonement" (Rom. 5:8-11). If
we really accept the truth of this biblical statement, there can be absolutely no
compromise on our part.

There are just so many verses that could be cited here, but Paul's words to Titus
summarize our position well. "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish,
disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy,
hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior
toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior..." (Titus 3:5).
You see, in Christ, justice is perfectly satisfied, and the demands for equity are fully met.
Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God (Rom.5:1). In fact, when
once we've experienced the biblical definition of rebirth, we are then transformed into
entirely new creatures, wherein old things are past away, and behold, all things are
become new (II Cor. 5:17). The wonderful thing about this is, the effects of this
transformation immediately begin to appear in our lives. We don't have to wait until some
future life (or lives) before we see results. However, in a strict cause-and-effect universe,
such as the one described by Blavatsky and others, there would be no room for such
things as mercy, grace or forgiveness. Such concepts are virtually unknown. The ideas of
a Mercyseat, or of Jesus as being our Advocate with the Father, are completely lost in
that world. That's the price one pays for believing that God is just an impersonal Force
which insensitively renders Its verdicts on mankind. What a cold, cruel, and lonely world
that would be!

In light of these things, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to see that irreconcilable
differences exist between these two schools of thought. And we're perfectly willing to
leave it at that. But this is just not the case with the reincarnationist. He insists that if we
have a problem reading soul migration into the Christian context, it's only because we've
misunderstood the Christian message!

Such a charge really doesn't deserve a response. After all, if someone feels that one
firmly established doctrine such as vicarious atonement should be extracted from
scripture, in order to insert one which has no basis whatsoever, what can we do to stop
them? Folks are free to believe what they want (and to suffer the consequences that
accompany those beliefs, as well). But just because someone chooses to believe a thing
doesn't make it right.

For the sake of the argument, we'll consider three biblical examples which are commonly
raised as proof that the theory of reincarnation has its roots in Scripture. Let's begin with
John 9:1-3. "And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth. And
His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he
was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that
the works of God should be made manifest in him.'"

It's often said that, in order for the disciples to have even questioned whether or not this
man's blindness could have been the result of his own doing, they had to have believed
that he at least could have sinned in a former existence. Since we've already
acknowledged that the Jews were acquainted with this doctrine, and that some of them
did embrace it, we'll allow for that possibility. Perhaps the disciples were of that
persuasion. However, reincarnation was only one of several opinions that was under
consideration at that time. For instance, there were some who believed that the human
spirit preexisted in a conscious state of being prior to its incarnation, and that the
consequences of its sinful actions while in that former state would be brought to bear
upon it afterward. There was also the belief that birth defects were a sign that the sins of
previous generations were being visited upon the offspring. There was even a belief that a
child was capable of committing sin while it was being formed in the womb! These ideas,
and others, were circulating throughout the Jewish community. Some of them had a
measure of validity to them, while others were nothing more than religious folklore and
foolish superstitions. But this just goes to show how convoluted the Jewish mind was at
the time of Christ. It's no secret that they were pretty messed up in their thinking. And
some were much too proud to ever admit that they could be wrong. But to as many as had
"ears to hear," Jesus came to clear up their mental muddle, and to speak truth to their
hearts.

This brings up another point made by the reincarnationists. If Jesus didn't allow for the
doctrine of reincarnation, then why didn't He address the matter while He had the
opportunity? It's our opinion that He did. His response that this man's blindness was not
from any fault of his own clearly contradicts the concept of Karmic retribution.
Remember, the doctrine of Karma was originally intended to explain the presence of
suffering in the world. It states that every circumstance in which a man is found is the
direct result of his own actions in a previous life. No man can get around this, and no one
can be exempted from the process. EVERY MAN MUST SUFFER AS A RESULT OF
HIS KARMA. THERE ARE NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT. However, the
purpose of this man's circumstance, according to Jesus, was for no other reason but that
the power of God might be manifest in him. If this was so (and we'll take Jesus' word for
it), then Karma could have had nothing to do with it. It just didn't factor into the equation.

Let's move on to another passage that has been quoted along this line, Matt. 16:13-14.
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying,
'Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?' And they said, 'Some say that thou art
John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.'"

Again, we're told that transmigration definitely had to have been in the minds of those
who said these things, otherwise they would not have expressed themselves as they did.
Why else would men say that Jesus could have been John, or Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one
of the prophets, if they had not believed that it was possible for Him to have been
reincarnated? Again, we'll repeat, the idea of reincarnation was something that was
entertained in the minds of some in that day. However, it's highly unlikely that this was
the case here, at least where John the Baptist is concerned. One reason we would say this
is because most who knew of Jesus also knew that He and the Baptist were both alive
during the same time period. It was common knowledge that their lives overlapped for
more than thirty years prior to the beheading of John. In fact, many had actually even
seen the two of them together at the Jordan River when Jesus was baptized by John.
Since this is so, how could anyone have seriously thought that Jesus was John the Baptist
reincarnated?
There may be more, but we can only think of two other ways in which their words might
have been taken. One, that one of the prophets had been raised from the dead, and had
simply taken on the pseudonym of Jesus. The other way would be that Jesus was
operating in the spirit and power (the anointing) of one of the prophets. Perhaps some
folks viewed it one way, and other folks held to the latter view. But its unlikely that
anyone had reincarnation in mind when they said these things.

Finally, there's Matt. 11:10, 13-14 and 17:11-13. It's said that in these passages,
reincarnation is mentioned, not just as an opinion of the people, but as a direct teaching of
Jesus Himself. "For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee...For all the prophets and the law
prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come."
"And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Why then say the scribes that Elias must first
come?' And Jesus answered and said unto them, 'Elias truly shall first come, and restore
all things. But I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have
done unto him whatsoever they listed' ...then the disciples understood that He spake unto
them of John the Baptist."

Was Jesus teaching in these places that John the Baptist was actually Elijah reincarnated?
There are those who would like for us to believe that He was. However, such a notion
might have been more plausible, were it not for two stubborn little details. Detail number
one, according to Lk. 1:17, John was called to go before the Lord "in the spirit and power
of Elias." This phraseology defines the way in which Malachi's prophecy regarding
Elijah's reappearance was to be understood (ref. Mal. 4:5, 6. It would be no different than
someone today, saying, "the present Pope is moving in the spirit of Pope John Paul," or
"Walmart is still operating in the spirit of Sam Walton," etc. We would immediately
know what was meant). Detail number two, when John was specifically asked about it, he
categorically denied being Elijah (John 1:21). Based on this information, we can
conclude that Jesus must have had something else in mind.

All things being considered, we would resolve on these points. While the belief of
reincarnation may be found in the Bible, that does not mean that it supports the belief in
reincarnation. It may very well find a presence in Scripture, since we know that there
were some in biblical times who had accepted it as truth. But that doesn't mean that it
finds an endorsement from Scripture. There is a great deal of difference. We could say
the same thing about many topics, such as idol worship, witchcraft, and others. We find
mention of these beliefs in Scripture, even among some who were called of God. But that
in no wise means that they are sanctioned as truth.

Of course, there's one passage of scripture that the messengers of soul migration
generally prefer to ignore, and that's Hebrews 9:27. It states, "As it is appointed to man
once to die, and after that the judgment..." The Greek word for once is hapax (Strong's
#530), and means "one (or a single) time (numerically or conclusively): once." Since it
has posed such an obstacle for reincarnationists, and they have made attempts to explain
it, we'll give serious consideration to their defense.
The argument has been made that the appointment with death referred to here has nothing
to do with physical death at all, but one with the spiritual state of being in which all men
existed in Adam. [ref. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all men be made
alive" ---I Cor. 15:22]. Their argument has been that while all men had a one-time
appointment with spiritual death, in that they were once dead in Adam, that appointment
has now been met, is finished, and all judgment has ended with Christ. Thus, Hebrews
9:27 is totally irrelevant regarding the number of times a person might die physically, and
be reincarnated. How would we respond to that?

Well, we would certainly agree that death is more than just the expiration of the body.
Our understanding is that it speaks of a process into which we are born, but one which
also includes (and concludes with) physical death. Therefore, while we may refer to them
as being two different deaths (a spiritual one and a physical one), the two are really
combined to make up one, which is protracted over a period of time (it's really only the
aspect that differs). If we may take a moment to do so here, we'll explain why we say
that.

Going back to the time when the appointment with death was originally made (namely,
Genesis 2:17), God's warning to Adam was, "...in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou
shalt surely die." The words "surely die" are interesting, for in the Hebrew text this
phrase is what's known grammatically as an infinitive absolute. The infinitive of a word is
usually made up of the word to plus the present form of a verb (called the stem of the
infinitive). In our case, it would suggest, "to be dying." When we look up this word die in
the Septuagint Version, we find that the mood is indicative (meaning, it is a declarative
statement), and used in its plural form. "Deaths." What we can gather from all of this is
that Gen. 2:17 should actually read, "to die shall you be dying" (this is exactly the way
the Concordant Version of Genesis renders it). We realize that Adam didn't physically die
within that twenty-four hour time period during which he and Eve partook of the Tree of
the knowledge of good and evil. He died spiritually, having allowed sin to separate him
from his God. However, there should be no doubt that some nine hundred and thirty years
later, Adam most certainly died in the physical sense, and his body returned to the dust
from whence it came. For this cause, we would view death as having a broader definition
than most would assign to it, involving both the spirit's separation from God, as well as
its eventual separation from the body. Now, with that being said, we'll get back to our
response.

The reason we would reject the idea that Heb. 9:27 has only to do with the spiritual
aspect of death, and nothing at all with the physical one, is twofold. The first part of that
reason has to do with the word "appointed." It's translated from the Greek word
"apokimai," which means, "to be reserved; figuratively, to await; Bbe appointed, (be)
laid up." Apokimai comes from two words, "apo," meaning, "off, i.e. away (from
something near)", and "kimai," meaning "to lie outstretched." In other words, this one-
time apokimai, or appointment with death, speaks of something that is off from us, that
lies outstretched before us. This would not seem to describe the spiritual state in which all
men are conceived (ref. Psa. 51:5), but rather, something which awaits them at a future
point in time, i.e. the death of the body. (Obviously, the time of this appointment is nearer
for some than it is for others). Another thing we should note is the tense in which the
writer of Hebrews used this word. According to the grammatical structure of this verse in
the Greek text, apokimai is used in Heb. 9:27 as a singular verb in the present tense.
Simply put, the appointment that man has with death and with judgment is not an event
that lies in the past, but one that is still pending. Thus, it is correctly translated in the
KJV, "As IT IS APPOINTED unto men once to die, and after that the judgment..." Had he
intended for it to be viewed as a historical event, he would have spoken of it in the past
tense, as he did of Christ's one-time sacrifice in the very next verse (verse 28), "...so
Christ WAS once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall
He appear a second time without sin unto salvation."

The second part of our reason is this: if that to which man was appointed once singly or
numerically was spiritual death [to the exclusion of physical death], and that appointment
has been met once and for all, then how would we explain Jude 12? Jude described those
in his day who were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness as being "twice dead...".
Can you see the conflict that would be created here? If they were twice dead, spiritually
speaking, then how could it be said that it was appointed unto them once to die, in the
numerical sense? When we take this into account, we're forced to broaden our concept to
include physical death. Spiritual death alone cannot possibly suffice in explaining Heb.
9:27.)

The simple fact of the matter is that Biblical sources do not at any point or in any way
support the idea of multiple incarnations. There is not one single example of such a thing
happening in Scripture, nor is it explicitly or even implicitly taught therein. The Christian
belief is that, should the earthly house of this present tabernacle be dissolved, it is not to
be replaced with future tabernacles of similar construction. Nay, we have A BUILDING
(singular) OF GOD, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Since this is
what the Scriptures teach, our hope lies in the resurrection, not in reincarnation.

Just for the record, whenever those of us who teach sonship speak of resurrection, we're
not just referring to a future event. Just as death is not a single event, but is a process into
which we are physically born, resurrection is a process which begins the moment an
individual is born from above. At that instant in time (and, yes, it does occur within the
realm of time), we, who were previously dead in trespasses and sins, are raised up
together, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:1-6). This
"catching up," or translation, has to do with our spirits, wherein they are raised from a
state of spiritual separation, and thus brought into a place of vital union with Christ. Since
"to be carnally minded is death" (Rom. 8:6), the next thing that is needed is the
resurrection of our souls (intellect, emotions and will), by which means our minds are
renewed (Rom. 12:1-2). This is the phase of resurrection that we're presently
experiencing. Ultimately, in God's appointed time, resurrection will complete its work,
completely fashioning and transfiguring these vile bodies of ours into the likeness of His
glorious body (Phil. 3:20-21). So, from beginning to end, our extraction out from among
the dead takes place as a result of the power of His resurrection, the power that's currently
at work within us. Therefore, we're not simply waiting for the resurrection to occur
sometime in the future...we're experiencing it now!
As we draw near the end of this writing, we have just enough room to address two of the
many strange theories that have circulated involving Jesus and reincarnation. The first is
that, because Jesus referred to Himself in Revelation 1:8 as "Alpha and Omega, the
Beginning and the Ending," and again in verse 17 as "the First and the Last" (also 2:8 &
22:13), He was claiming to be the reincarnation of the first man, Adam. Edgar Cayce was
perhaps the first to teach this, and it's been repeated in various groups over the course of
time (unfortunately, even among some who claim to teach sonship). According to Cayce,
Jesus had been reincarnated as many as thirty different times prior to His birth in
Bethlehem, and has been reincarnated multiple times since. Although he believed that
Jesus was raised from the dead, he also believed that He continues to be reincarnated
following His ascension.

Let it be understood that we disavow any association with such logic. Our primary
objection comes over the attachment of the word "Adam" to the adjectives "the First and
the Last." There's absolutely nothing in the text that would suggest a connection of this
sort. Why, then, would anyone want to put words in the Lord's mouth?

(To us, the proper application is not hard to discover. In fact, it's found in verse 8 of the
same chapter---"I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." Plainly, all three
phrases, "Alpha and Omega," "the Beginning and the Ending" and "the First and the
Last" have nothing to do with Adam, but with the timelessness of the Almighty, and the
fullness of His Being. He always has been, and always will be. Who can possibly
compare with Him? The accuracy of this interpretation can also be confirmed through the
exegetical law of first occurrence. What this law means is that a word or phrase is best
defined by virtue of the way in which it's first used in scripture. In this case, the first
occurrence where the words "the First and the Last" are used in conjunction is found in
Isa. 44:6. "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and His Redeemer the Lord of hosts; I
AM THE FIRST, AND I AM THE LAST; beside Me there is no God." Again, the object is
the Almighty, and the adjectives "First" and "Last" are used to declare that He stands
alone, and is completely beyond compare. Verse 8 goes on to say, "Is there a God beside
Me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Need we say more?)

In the event that some would still find it acceptable to connect the words "First and Last"
to the word "Adam", we'll come at it from a different angle. While I Corinthians 15:45
refers to Jesus as "the last Adam," and in verse 47 of the same chapter as "the second
Man," a clear distinction is made between the first Adam and the Last. They are not one
and the same, and Paul went to great lengths to show this. One was of the earth, earthy,
while the other was the Lord from heaven. One was classified as a living soul (that is, a
soul which had been given life), while the other was made a quickening, or life-giving
Spirit. And one was responsible for marring the whole of mankind in the mire of sin,
while the other was responsible for redeeming them out of it. Think about it for a
moment. Had Jesus been the reincarnation of Adam, He would have also been the
embodiment of Adam's sin. And if He had been the embodiment of Adam's sin, then He
could never have been the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29).
Why? Because, in Old Testament times, the lamb offered for sin had to be free of spots,
blemishes or deformities of any sort. Had it been defected in any way, it could not have
served as an acceptable sacrifice in the eyes of God. Likewise, had Jesus been tainted
with sin, He would have been disqualified as the Savior of the world. It's as simple as
that.

Another strange notion is that those who have the indwelling Spirit of Christ are actually
multiple reincarnations of Jesus. Without getting too involved in the details, we ought to
acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between the spirit of Jesus and the
Spirit of Christ. When we speak of the spirit of Jesus, we're speaking of the human spirit
which helped comprise the person of Jesus. But when we speak of the Spirit of Christ,
we're speaking of the Divine Spirit which inhabits the Body of Christ, of which Jesus is
the Head. Understandably, therefore, when we are born of the Spirit, it is not the personal
spirit of Jesus that comes to dwell in us, but the Spirit of Christ. The man Jesus retains
His individuality and personal identity, and we retain ours. And yet, we share in the one
and selfsame Spirit.

We might also point out that when God looks at the Body of Christ, He doesn't see a lot
of individual bodies, into which the Spirit of the Lord is divided. He sees One Body
consisting of many members (including the Head), which houses One undivided Spirit.
"There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling..."
(Eph. 4:4). In what sense, then, could it be considered a reincarnation?

Well, the significance of this subject forces us to extend our comments over into a
following article. Therefore, we'll take up where we left off in the next installment of this
series.

If you, or someone you know would like to be added to our mailing list (sent out free of
charge), simply write to:

GOOD SEED PUBLICATIONS

c/o Terry & Tykie Crisp
672 Goodman Rd.
Dawson, GA USA 39842

You may visit our website at: www.goodseedpublications.com Our email address is:
TCrisp4448@aol.com

Return to Home Page

Return to Writings Page

Previous / Next Part of Series